For you perhaps. but you're a clown. What to do you contribute to the debate? Why would you fail to disclose your phototoshopping? Ashamed? Get the f out everyvbody else's life. You contribute nothing to the discussion. Go Photoshop a picture and leave.

John, I completely disagree. Surprising, right? Where is the moral imperative to disclose what was done in an artistic image? Art is an entirely subjective arena. Gursky created the scene as he saw it, or wanted to see it. The goal, with documentary/PJ is to try and maintain objectivity.

Okay, I read the essay, and you know, it doesn't do much for me, because it doesn't reach any kind of defensible conclusion. Like you, I think all kinds of artifice is allowable in art. (I'm more of a painter than a photographer, and though my images look somewhat realistic, they obviously aren't an image of any scene that anybody's ever experienced.) But photography presents a peculiar and singular problem: that is, since its inception, photos have been presented as images of a certain kind of objective reality. It hasn't always been that, and there have been manipulations from the beginning, but of the billions of photos taken since the beginning, probably 99 percent are unmanipulated, straight-out-of-the-camera family photos, cat photos, snapshots, etc. Few iPhone photos are post-processed, because that's not what iPhone photos are for. And it's true, as Tal said, that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera. So: the default position of a photo is that it's unmanipulated. It always has been that, and in general, manipulations before Photoshop were self-disclosing.

Art photos may either be manipulated or unmanipulated. Either is equally acceptable.

However, if you present for sale a landscape photo that gives every appearance of being unmanipulated, which is the default state of out-of-camera photographs, and in fact you manipulated, but then essentially deny the manipulation, you're being unethical. You're lying. Painters essentially can't lie about the images in their works: the images are what they are, individual creations that spring from the minds of the artists. But photographers, because of the peculiar mechanical method of making a photo, and because of photography's history as an "objective" medium, can lie, and they do, and that behavior is unethical. It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying.

To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.

...To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.

John, that is an interesting example. While I agree with your reasoning, let me introduce a twist.

When I was in Yosemite, I had a full moon in the scene. Given the inherent dynamic range limitations of slide film, I got the scene mostly right, but the moon overexposed. I had another camera with me, loaded with a negative film, and I snapped the same scene perhaps minutes apart. Now, I was thinking of taking the moon from the negative film (which has a greater dynamic range) and photoshopping it into the slide film scene. This would satisfy your requirement ("Does this represent what actually happened out there?"), yet it will be not only photoshopping, but compositing as well. So, if I say "Yes," would I be unethical?

The reality is that astnommically speaking, no one knows what the astronomical colors are. (Debatable since the advent of a Canon 20D(a)), but we know that every color has a certain wave length for a certain amount of time (I'm eliminating the artifacts of heat here), but the reality is that color does not matter except for pretty pictures. For data, astronomers really don't want color interpolation. Colors reveal nothing important at the human visaual wavelengths.

... that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera.

In this case - if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and the photographer says "Yes," then do you have a problem with that? ("It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying".)

Meanwhile, let's see if Bob Fisher, the scatological clown, has courage enough to post his be pre and post photoshop work for all of us to evaliuate for "veracity" and "ethics>

Ken Richmond

Was Le Gray unethical? Was Adams unethical? Is camera movement during an exposure unethical? Is using in-camera multiple exposure unethical? Is combining multiple exposures in Photoshop unethical? Is use of Active D-Lighting or Highlight Protect unethical? Is in camera HDR unethical?

As far as my thoughts on the matter, I've stated them pretty clearly. And multiple times. If you'd like more, I'd suggest buying my book.

Okay, I read the essay, and you know, it doesn't do much for me, because it doesn't reach any kind of defensible conclusion. Like you, I think all kinds of artifice is allowable in art. (I'm more of a painter than a photographer, and though my images look somewhat realistic, they obviously aren't an image of any scene that anybody's ever experienced.) But photography presents a peculiar and singular problem: that is, since its inception, photos have been presented as images of a certain kind of objective reality. It hasn't always been that, and there have been manipulations from the beginning, but of the billions of photos taken since the beginning, probably 99 percent are unmanipulated, straight-out-of-the-camera family photos, cat photos, snapshots, etc. Few iPhone photos are post-processed, because that's not what iPhone photos are for. And it's true, as Tal said, that there may be a roaring expressway a few inches out of the landscape photo, but if the photo itself is unmanipulated, then its an image of what was in front of the camera. So: the default position of a photo is that it's unmanipulated. It always has been that, and in general, manipulations before Photoshop were self-disclosing.

Art photos may either be manipulated or unmanipulated. Either is equally acceptable.

However, if you present for sale a landscape photo that gives every appearance of being unmanipulated, which is the default state of out-of-camera photographs, and in fact you manipulated, but then essentially deny the manipulation, you're being unethical. You're lying. Painters essentially can't lie about the images in their works: the images are what they are, individual creations that spring from the minds of the artists. But photographers, because of the peculiar mechanical method of making a photo, and because of photography's history as an "objective" medium, can lie, and they do, and that behavior is unethical. It has nothing to do with whether a piece is art or not, or whether its been manipulated or not, it's whether the photographer is lying.

To make it brutally clear: If you are in the American southwest, and you take a photo of an arch, and then you uses Photoshop to bring in a separate moonrise, and place the moon in the arch, I have no problem, though I wouldn't buy the photo -- it'd just be another inane Photoshop idea. But if somebody asks, "Does this represent what actually happened out there?" and you say "Yes," then I do have a problem. If you represent the photograph as an image of a natural fact, you're being unethical, no matter how beautiful the object (the photograph) may be.

Sure, the billions of family snaps and vacation pics are unedited. Two things. First, in the film era, all but professionals and hardcore enthusiasts had not the ability to edit images. Now, with digital I'd venture that the percentage of edited images is much higher. Second, I think, at least on this forum, we're talking about a higher level of photography than the family vacation snap taken with a Kodak Instamatic.

IPhone pictures not edited? One word: Instagram. There are all manner of apps available for altering smartphone pictures and yes, those apps get heavy use.

The point with artistic photography is that it shouldn't matter. It's art. You like it, fine. You don't like it, fine. The manner of creation is immaterial. The impressionistic style of photography doesn't, in any way, represent an objective reality. It can be done with Photoshop or in camera. Is one more ethical than the other? It's the idea that all photography is supposed to represent some objective reality that is the problem.

Photo shopping destroys the credibility of everyone involved in photography. Take your illustrations and tell the world, "I couldn't have done it without Photoshop!." Then the world will not presume that the rest of us are involved in the same fraud. If the photograph was defective to start with, throw it away and retake it. Learn photography and get it right the first time or call your product a "photoshop illustration" so the rest of us aren't damaged by incompetence and fraudulent practice. Photo manipulation willfully and intentionally steals the effort from those who don't scam and defraud the world with fake illustrations. Publish the raw so the world at large can see what you've done or throw away your camera and work from stock photos just like the rest of the "real illustrators" do. There is enough free stock out there to rip off for just about any "illustration" you want to produce. Why bother with a camera at all?

Scato-Bob gets no more slack on the scam scale. I've got a new hobby - watching his posts for insult opportunities.